Please also check my answer above (the formatted one, not the one I fucked up typing on my cell phone).

Sure. First of all: you see a creation. Bear with me. The universe's existence is not "logically" explained by the big bang, a singularity, a quantum fluctuation or whatever it is. Quantum fluctuation? What is it? Is it something is nothing? If it's something where did that come from? A singularity? So mathematics created the universe? Come on. Where is science's cause and effect?

That is the existence from non-existence problem.

I am being illogic, naive and what not? Well, so are atheists but they cover this non-logic in a shroud of scientifically sounding mumbo jumbo that requires a giant leap of faith.

Second: life. And the abundance and beauty of it. Chemical evolution? Come on! I speak as a chemist: this is not how things work in chemistry.

Think of the different types of chemical compounds used life as we know it, e.g. fatty acids, sugars, proteins, ribonucleotides/-sides and their polymeric forms carrying information. They do not form in those pure forms required for life. A bunch of mixed "gunk" offers so many pathways (speak: myriads) of reactions to non-functional components/isomers in the context of life. Even if those types of functional ones formed, they'd have to be present in substantial quantities at the same location for them to react to some functional systems; stability of the polymeric ones is often very limited, so they also have to form at similar times and be continuously supplied. Chemical equilibrium is not in favor of long chains involving condensation forming (proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides) so time works against those. Auto-catalytic cycles? Too low a faithful reproduction of the template to be of any use for that purpose.

Not to mention the chicken/egg problem of which was first: ribonucleic acids (information) or enzymes (protein catalysts necessary to reproduce this information, notwithstanding the existence of ribozymes).

And don't get me started on stereochemistry and the complications diastereomers add to the problem. Chirality-induced spin selectivity all fine and well, but the effect of it in those supposed mixtures is not large enough to be of significant impact. And then there's the problem that one set of enantiomers should have prevailed of the other for some reason. Even if those chemicals had all formed with mentioned prerequisites, they don't just magically give a (proto) cell when whipped together.

All that taken together, we are talking about probabilities for such a series of events to happen by mere chance over and over again so unfathomably low that even given the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed (or even the 14 billion years the universe has existed) it can be said with bold confidence: "That did not happen", or at least: "That is not a satisfactory hypothesis, let alone explanation".

That is the life from non-life problem.

In other words, it requires a giant leap of faith to assume naturalistic explanations account for what we observe, unless you let yourself gaslight into believing otherwise by unsound (or simply ignorant) atheistic people or scientists.

I, for one, am not willing to take those leaps of faith just so I can be smug or feel superior over, and mock "religious nutjobs" and I have good reasons for it, some of them actually based on science. I simply deem a creator to be the better explanation for existence and for life.

To be clear, I don't advocate for a "God of the gaps" nor that no interesting discoveries have been made in the course of this kind of research. But the current state of scientific evidence does not warrant for statements like: "We know how it occurred". Apart from that science can, if at all in a distant future, make statements about how it occurred (in a mechanistic sense). Assuming there is a God may explain why it occurred (in the sense of authorship and purpose). These two are not mutually exclusive and should therefore not be played against each other.

In light of all that, Pascal's wager is an important concept to consider rather than excluding God a priori. You gain nothing that is if ultimate importance or meaning (considering the inevitable heat death if the universe, assuming materialism was true) by clinging to the notion there was no God. But you gain a meaningful life with comfort and a living hope of things to come with the faith in an eternal creator (a specific one, for that matter, hint, hint (o;)

Grah! It removed all my line breaks.

Sure. First of all: you see a creation. Bear with me. The universe's existence is *not* "logically" explained by the big bang, a singularity, a quantum fluctuation or whatever it is. Quantum fluctuation? What is it? Is it something is nothing? If it's something where did that come from? A singularity? So mathematics created the universe? Come on. Where is science's cause and effect? That is the existence from non-existence problem. I am being illogic, naive and what not? Well, so are atheists but they cover this non-logic in a shroud of scientifically sounding mumbo jumbo that requires a giant leap of faith. Second: life. And the abundance and beauty of it. Chemical evolution? Come on! I speak as a chemist: this is not how things work in chemistry. Think of the different types of chemical compounds used life as we know it, e.g. fatty acids, sugars, proteins, ribonucleotides/-sides and their polymeric forms carrying information. They do not form in those pure forms required for life. A bunch of mixed "gunk" offers so many pathways (speak: myriads) of reactions to non-functional components/isomers in the context of life. Even if those types of functional ones formed, they'd have to be present in substantial quantities at the same location for them to react to some functional systems; stability of the polymeric ones is often very limited, so they also have to form at similar times and be continuously supplied. Chemical equilibrium is not in favor of long chains involving condensation forming (proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides) so time works against those. Auto-catalytic cycles? Too low a faithful reproduction of the template to be of any use for that purpose. Not to mention the chicken/egg problem of which was first: ribonucleic acids (information) or enzymes (protein catalysts necessary to reproduce this information, notwithstanding the existence of ribozymes). And don't get me started on stereochemistry and the complications diastereomers add to the problem. Chirality-induced spin selectivity all fine and well, but the effect of it in those supposed mixtures is not large enough to be of significant impact. And then there's the problem that one set of enantiomers should have prevailed of the other for some reason. Even if those chemicals had all formed with mentioned prerequisites, they don't just magically give a (proto) cell when whipped together. All that taken together, we are talking about probabilities for such a series of events to happen by mere chance over and over again so unfathomably low that even given the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed (or even the 14 billion years the universe has existed) it can be said with bold confidence: "That did not happen", or at least: "That is not a satisfactory hypothesis, let alone explanation". That is the life from non-life problem. In other words, it requires a giant leap of faith to assume naturalistic explanations, unless you let yourself gaslight into believing otherwise by unsound (or ignorant) atheistic people or scientists. I, for one, am not willing to take those leaps of faith just so I can be smug or feel superior over, and mock "religious nutjobs" and I have good reasons for it, some of them actually based on science. I simply deem a creator to be the better explanation for existence and for life. All that taken together, we are talking about probabilities for such a series of events to happen by mere chance over and over again so unfathomably low that even given the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed (or even the 14 billion years the universe has existed) it can be said with bold confidence: "That did not happen", or at least: "That is not a satisfactory hypothesis, let alone explanation". That is the life from non-life problem. In other words, it requires a giant leap of faith to assume naturalistic explanations, unless you let yourself gaslight into believing otherwise by atheistic people or scientists. I, for one, am not willing to take those leaps of faith just so I can be smug or feel superior over, and mock "religious nutjobs" and I have good reasons for it, some of them actually based on science. I simply deem a creator to be the better explanation for existence and for life. To be clear, I don't advocate for a "God of the gaps" nor that no interesting discoveries have been made in the course of this kind of research. But the current state of scientific evidence does not warrant for statements like: "We know how it occurred". Apart from that science can, if at all in a distant future, make statements about _how_ it occurred (in a mechanistic sense). Assuming there is a God may explain _why_ it occurred (in the sense of authorship and purpose). These two are not mutually exclusive and should therefore not be played against each other. In light of all that, Pascal's wager is an important concept to consider rather than excluding God a priori. You gain nothing that is if ultimate importance or meaning (considering the inevitable heat death if the universe, assuming materialism was true) by clinging to the notion there was no God. But you gain a meaningful life with comfort and a living hope of things to come with the faith in an eternal creator (a specific one, for that matter, hint, hint (o;)

Regarding Islam: are you sure there's nothing in the Hadith commanding that?

Well, the limit of their sin was reached – tabula rasa (o;

There is numerous evidence of a creator existing if you're willing to see them as such. The difference between the "meatball" view of things and the acknowledgement of God and redemption by Him is that people accepting the latter do have a lively hope while the former don't. I, for one, choose to adopt the latter one as it makes more sense.

Don't forget the prophetic twist to it: Only the lamb's blood (Jesus as the Lamb of God as he's called by John the Baptist) saves from Death.

They're His creatures after all and He will judge the justly. Furthermore, Paul says in Romans 8,18: "I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us." And that statement is actually comforting unless you "sit among the scoffers". (o;

Were they _able_ to hide or did they attempt to? What makes you think those gods were just as real (or deemed to be real)? Isn't it more likely it means idols (in contrast to "the real thing") or gods in a metaphorical sense like wealth, status etc.? Also "before" is not in the sense of rank but rather in the sense of "presence", i.e. nothing/no one revered like is only appropriate for God Himself.

You're talking about Islam, aren't you? Because in Christianity, it's both: fear (in the sense of reverence/deep respect because of God's holiness) AND love (in the sense of acknowledging God's goodness and justness).

There's hope left; that other highly intelligent species we all know about will take care of it

I can't tell whether you're being ironic, so I'll point out the universe encompasses other star systems and ~-270 C is not a comfy temperature to support life.

There's an obvious and quite simple solution to that problem: get rid of the unbelievers. It never fails.

The inevitable heat death of the universe does that anyway, so why even bother?